[55]

LETTER OF THE TEN

“DEAR BRETHREN,

“Our brother, Mr. George Alexander, having printed and circulated a statement ex-pressive of his reasons for withdrawing from visible fellowship with us at the table of theLord: and these reasons being grounded on the fact that those who labour among youhave not complied with his request relative to the judging of certain errors which havebeen taught at Plymouth; it becomes needful that those of us who have incurred any re-sponsibility in this matter should lay before you a brief explanation of the way in whichwe have acted.

“And first, it may be well to mention, that we had no intimation whatever of ourbrother’s intention to act as he has done, nor any knowledge of his intention to circulateany letter, until it was put into our hands in print.

“Some weeks ago, he expressed his determination to bring his views before a meetingof the body, and he was told that he was quite at liberty to do so. He afterwards declaredthat he would waive this, but never intimated, in the slightest way, his [56] intention to actas he has done without first affording the church an opportunity of hearing his reasons forseparation. Under these circumstances, we feel it of the deepest importance, for relievingthe disquietude of mind naturally occasioned by our brother’s letter, explicitly to statethat the views relative to the Person of our blessed Lord, held by those who for sixteenyears have been occupied in teaching the word among you, are unchanged.

“The truths relative to the divinity of His Person – the sinlessness of His nature – andthe perfection of His sacrifice, which have been taught both in public teaching and in writ-ing for these many years past, are, through the grace of God, those which we still main-tain. We feel it most important to make this avowal, inasmuch as the letter referred to iscalculated, we trust unintentionally, to convey a different impression to the minds of suchas cherish a godly jealousy for the faith once delivered to the saints.

“We add, for the further satisfaction of any who may have had their minds disturbed,that we utterly disclaim the assertion that the blessed Son of God was involved in the guiltof the first Adam; or that He was born under the curse of the broken law, because of Hisconnection with Israel. We hold Him to have been always the Holy One of God, in whomthe Father was ever well pleased. We know of no curse which the Saviour bore, exceptthat which He endured as the surety for sinners – according to that scripture, ‘He wasmade a curse for us.’ We utterly reject the thought of His ever having had the experiencesof an unconverted person; but maintain that while He suffered outwardly the trials con-nected with His being a man and an [57] Israelite – still in His feelings and experiences, aswell as in His external character, He was entirely ‘separate from sinners.’

“We now proceed to state the grounds on which we have felt a difficulty in complyingwith the request of our brother, Mr. Alexander, that we should formally investigate andgive judgment on certain errors which have been taught among Christians meeting atPlymouth.

“1st. We considered from the beginning that it would not be for the comfort or edifi-cation of the saints here – nor for the glory of God – that we, in Bristol, should get entan-gled in the controversy connected with the doctrines referred to. We do not feel that,because errors may be taught at Plymouth or elsewhere, therefore we, as a body, arebound to investigate them.

THE “LETTER OF THE TEN” 4

“2nd. The practical reason alleged why we should enter upon the investigation ofcertain tracts issued at Plymouth was, that thus we might be able to know how to act withreference to those who might visit us from thence, or who are supposed to be adherentsof the author of the said publications. In reply to this, we have to state, that the views ofthe writer alluded to could only be fairly learned from the examination of his own ac-knowledged writings. We did not feel that we should be warranted in taking our impres-sion of the views actually held by him from any other source than from some treatisewritten by himself and professedly explanatory of the doctrines advocated. Now there hasbeen such variableness in the views held by the writer in question, that it is difficult toascertain what he would now acknowledge as his.

[58] “3rd. In regard to these writings, christian brethren, hitherto of unblemished repu-tation for soundness in the faith, have come to different conclusions as to the actualamount of error contained in them. The tracts some of us knew to be written in such anambiguous style, that we greatly shrunk from the responsibility of giving any formal judg-ment on the matter.

“4th. As approved brethren, in different places, have come to such different conclu-sions in reference to the amount of error contained in these tracts, we could neither desirenor expect that the saints here would be satisfied with the decision of one or two leadingbrethren. Those who felt desirous to satisfy their own minds, would naturally be led towish to peruse the writings for themselves. For this, many among us have no leisure time;many would not be able to understand what the tracts contained, because of the mode ofexpression employed; and the result, there is much reason to fear, would be such perversedisputations and strifes of words, as minister questions rather than godly edifying.

“5th. Even some of those who now condemn the tracts as containing doctrine essen-tially unsound, did not so understand them on the first perusal. Those of us who werespecially requested to investigate and judge the errors contained in them, felt that, undersuch circumstances, there was but little probability of our coming to unity of judgmenttouching the nature of the doctrines therein embodied.

“6th. Even supposing that those who inquired into the matter had come to the sameconclusion, touching [59] the amount of positive error therein contained, this would nothave guided us in our decision respecting individuals coming from Plymouth. For suppos-ing the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us inrejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they hadunderstood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation truth; especially asthose meeting at Ebrington-street, Plymouth, last January, put forth a statement, disclaim-ing the errors charged against the tracts.

“7th. The requirement that we should investigate and judge Mr. Newton’s tracts, ap-peared to some of us like the introduction of a fresh test of communion. It was demandedof us that, in addition to a sound confession and a corresponding walk, we should, as abody, come to a formal decision about what many of us might be quite unable to under-stand.

“8th. We remembered the word of the Lord, that ‘the beginning of strife is as theletting out of water.’ We were well aware that the great body of believers amongst uswere in happy ignorance of the Plymouth controversy, and we did not feel it well to beconsidered as identifying ourselves with either party. We judge that this controversy hadbeen so carried on as to cause the truth to be evil spoken of; and we do not desire to beconsidered as identifying ourselves with that which has caused the opposer to reproachthe way of the Lord. At the same time we wish distinctly to be understood that we would

THE “LETTER OF THE TEN” 5

* “Pastoral Letters” by H. Craik.

seek to maintain fellowship with all believers, and consider ourselves as particularly asso-ciated with those who meet as we do, simply in the name of the Lord Jesus.

[60] “9th. We felt that the compliance with Mr. Alexander’s request would be theintroduction of an evil precedent. If a brother has a right to demand our examining awork of fifty pages, he may require our investigating error said to be contained in one ofmuch larger dimensions; so that all our time might be wasted in the examination of otherpeople’s errors, instead of more important service.

“It only remains to notice the three reasons specially assigned by Mr. Alexander injustification of his course of action. To the first, viz., ‘that by our not judging this matter,many of the Lord’s people will be excluded from communion with us’ – we reply, thatunless our brethren can prove, either that error is held and taught amongst us, or thatindividuals are received into communion who ought not to be admitted, they can have noscriptural warrant for withdrawing from our fellowship. We would affectionately entreatsuch brethren as may be disposed to withdraw from communion for the reason assigned,to consider that, except they can prove allowed evil in life or doctrine, they cannot, with-out violating the principles on which we meet, treat us as if we had renounced the faith ofthe Gospel.

“In reply to the second reason, viz., ‘that persons may be received from Plymouthholding evil doctrines’ – we are happy in being able to state, that ever since the matterwas agitated, we have maintained that persons coming from thence – if suspected of anyerror – would be liable to be examined on the point; that in the case of one individualwho had fallen under the suspicion of certain brethren amongst us, not only was thereprivate intercourse with him relative to his views, as soon as it was known that he wasobjected to, but the individual [61] referred to – known to some of us for several years asa consistent Christian – actually came to a meeting of labouring brethren for the verypurpose that any question might be asked him by any brother who should have any diffi-culty on his mind. Mr. Alexander himself was the principal party in declining the presenceof the brother referred to, on that occasion, such inquiry being no longer demanded, inas-much as the difficulties relative to the views of the individual in question, had been re-moved by private intercourse. We leave Mr. Alexander to reconcile this fact, which hecannot have forgotten, with the assertion contained under his second special reason forwithdrawing.

“In regard to the third ground alleged by Mr. Alexander, viz., that by not judging thematter, we lie under the suspicion of supporting false doctrine, we have only to refer tothe statement already made at the commencement of this paper.

“In conclusion, we would seek to impress upon all present the evil of treating thesubject of our Lord’s humanity as a matter of speculative or angry controversy. One ofthose who have been ministering among you from the beginning, feels it a matter of deepthankfulness to God, that so long ago as in the year 1835,* he committed to writing, andsubsequently printed, what he had learned from the Scriptures of truth relative to themeaning of that inspired declaration, ‘The Word was made flesh.’ He would affectionatelyrefer any whose minds may be now disquieted, to what he then wrote, and was after-wards led to publish. If there be heresy in the simple statements contained in the lettersalluded to, let it be pointed out; if not, let all who are interested in [62] the matter knowthat we continue unto the present day, ‘speaking the same things.’ (Signed)

THE “LETTER OF THE TEN” 6

HENRY CRAIK, EDMUND FELTHAM,GEORGE MÜLLER, JOHN WITHY,JACOB HENRY HALE, SAMUEL BUTLER,CHARLES BROWN, JOHN MEREDITH,ELIJAH STANLEY, ROBERT AITCHISON.”

The above paper was read at meetings of brethren at Bethesda Chapel, on Thursday,June 29th, and on Monday, July 3rd, 1848.